2004 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD NISAR KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATEY and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2004 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Qazi Ehsanullah Qureshi, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NISAR KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATEY and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Qazi Ehsanullah Qureshi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD NISAR KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATEY and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sanaullah Khan Gandapur and Abdul Latif Khan Baloch for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 9th May, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 497(2)‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Further inquiry‑‑‑Two versions arising from the same incident, one given by complainant in F.I.R. and other by apposite party‑‑‑Bail was normally granted in such case on the ground of further inquiry for the reason that question as to which version was correct, was to be decided by Trial Court which was supposed to record evidence and also appraise same in order to come to a final conclusion in that regard. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 497(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (V of 1860), Ss.302/324/34‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑ Further inquiry‑‑‑Out of four accused persons, three had been released on bail by Trial Court‑‑‑Accused was behind the bars for the last about 8/9 months‑‑‑Investigation in the case was completed and accused was no more required for further investigation besides the fact that accused party of cross‑case was already on bail ‑‑‑F.I.R. had revealed that complainant alongwith others was proceeding towards police lines for duty when incident took place and it was nowhere clear from F.I.R. as well as from the police record as to who was the employee of the police, whether all or anyone of them‑‑‑Record had not mentioned that it was duty hour or otherwise‑‑‑Prosecution had not yet confirmed from concerned quarters the said fact‑‑‑Such circumstances had made out a case of further inquiry‑‑‑Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 497(5)‑‑‑Application for cancellation of bail‑‑‑One of co‑accused was granted bail‑on ground of minority as according to his school leaving certificate, he was under sixteen years on the day of occurrence‑‑‑No allegation of misuse of the concession of bail or tampering with the evidence or absconsion was against the accused‑‑‑Bail granted to said co‑accused could not be cancelled. Dy.A.‑G. for the State. Pir Liaqat Ali Shah for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 497(2)‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Further inquiry‑‑‑Two versions arising from the same incident, one given by complainant in F.I.R. and other by apposite party‑‑‑Bail was normally granted in such case on the ground of further inquiry for the reason that question as to which version was correct, was to be decided by Trial Court which was supposed to record evidence and also appraise same in order to come to a final conclusion in that regard. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 497(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (V of 1860), Ss.302/324/34‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑ Further inquiry‑‑‑Out of four accused persons, three had been released on bail by Trial Court‑‑‑Accused was behind the bars for the last about 8/9 months‑‑‑Investigation in the case was completed and accused was no more required for further investigation besides the fact that accused party of cross‑case was already on bail ‑‑‑F.I.R. had revealed that complainant alongwith others was proceeding towards police lines for duty when incident took place and it was nowhere clear from F.I.R. as well as from the police record as to who was the employee of the police, whether all or anyone of them‑‑‑Record had not mentioned that it was duty hour or otherwise‑‑‑Prosecution had not yet confirmed from concerned quarters the said fact‑‑‑Such circumstances had made out a case of further inquiry‑‑‑Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 497(5)‑‑‑Application for cancellation of bail‑‑‑One of co‑accused was granted bail‑on ground of minority as according to his school leaving certificate, he was under sixteen years on the day of occurrence‑‑‑No allegation of misuse of the concession of bail or tampering with the evidence or absconsion was against the accused‑‑‑Bail granted to said co‑accused could not be cancelled. Sanaullah Khan Gandapur and Abdul Latif Khan Baloch for Petitioner. Dy.A.‑G. for the State. Pir Liaqat Ali Shah for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 9th May, 2003.